121–130 of 360 posts
Unfortunately, I don't think any additional evidence will convince vaccine skeptics of the safety of mRNA vaccines
Unfortunately, I don't think any additional evidence will convince vaccine skeptics of the safety of mRNA vaccines
FDA is imposing stricter vaccine protocols due to children deaths linked to Covid-19 vaccine-related myocarditis [1]. [1] https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/us-polit...
If we want to use medications responsibly and rationally, we must be careful about the cost/benefit analysis to the intended recipient groups. It makes great sense to vaccinate old people against Covid and teenagers against HPV. The other way round, much less so.
Of course the vendors will push for blanket use, as they make more money, but that is also the problem.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The reduction in all-cause mortality was independent of covid deaths. Which seems to suggest that there was big differences between the groups other than the vaccination. This of course does not change that the vaccine seems mostly safe, but it definitely calls in to question whether the protection against covid death was vaccine-mediated or due to some other difference between the groups. Therefore this paper is mod…
A 25% reduction is huge, even if you account for the fact that people who get vaccines tend to be more health conscious to begin with, when you consider that outside of the very sick and very old Covid has a mortality rate under 1%.
Unfortunately, I don't think any additional evidence will convince vaccine skeptics of the safety of mRNA vaccines
I find that incredibly frustrating and dangerous, but as far as I can see, it's the way it is.
I found the intro very confusing, tbh. Particularly the "no increased risk of all-cause mortality". I mean, if we assume the vaccines worked, we'd certainly expect a decreased risk of all-case mortality (because "all-case mortality" certainly includes "covid mortality"). Reading "no increase" seems to imply "it doesn't change anything". Yeah, technically, the sentence does not say that ("no increase" can mean "no dec…
Because this whole paper is bullshit and is a bias confirmation report It assesses persons "who were alive on November 1, 2021" That tantamount to saying "for people alive January 1st 1950, the Second World War was not a significant cause of mortality" Can you see how ridiculous that sounds?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
RFK Jr's FDA is imposing stricter vaccine protocols due to children deaths linked to Covid-19 vaccine-related myocarditis.
Are they lying about the deaths? I'm not following.
Unfortunately, I don't think any additional evidence will convince vaccine skeptics of the safety of mRNA vaccines
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A 25% reduction is huge, even if you account for the fact that people who get vaccines tend to be more health conscious to begin with, when you consider that outside of the very sick and very old Covid has a mortality rate under 1%.
1 out of 100 when billions are getting it is gonna be a large number. Mortality rate has gone down substantially since the vaccines.
I found the intro very confusing, tbh. Particularly the "no increased risk of all-cause mortality". I mean, if we assume the vaccines worked, we'd certainly expect a decreased risk of all-case mortality (because "all-case mortality" certainly includes "covid mortality"). Reading "no increase" seems to imply "it doesn't change anything". Yeah, technically, the sentence does not say that ("no increase" can mean "no dec…
People in a technical field, learn to "chunk" complex phrases. Their natural communication style becomes complex. Which makes them hard to understand to those outside of the field. If they want to be understood, the solution isn't to try to educate the world. It is to educate themselves. To learn how to write simply and directly.
Depending on the readability test used, the section up to "Introduction" - which is supposed to be readable - is somewhere between advanced high school and university. See https://www.online-utility.org/english/readability_test_and_... or other free tools to test it. That's bad. The percentage of Americans who can read this text is below the percentage who could read, say, a plain language version written in Spanish. We should expect people to misunderstand. We should not expect this paper to convince.
They define unvaccinated as anyone in the study who didn't get their first dose by Nov 2021. That feels like a pretty tight window to me. I don't think they checked to see if those "unvaccinated" people got vaccinated during the 4 year followup, especially given the mandates that forced people to get them.
[flagged]
If you "know" that a study whose title you are predisposed to disagree with has "BS" in it, something tells me no amount of scientific evidence is going to persuade you.